Kevin is a partner at Goldstein & Russell, P.C., a Supreme Court litigation boutique. He has argued 11 merits cases in the past nine years and served as counsel or co-counsel in nearly 50 merits cases before the court. In addition to representing a range of individuals, businesses and institutions as parties, Kevin frequently serves as counsel to amici such as the American Civil Liberties Union, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the National Women’s Law Center and constitutional law scholars. Prior to joining the firm, Kevin worked for five years in the Appellate Section of the Civil Rights Division at the U.S. Department of Justice. During that time, he represented the United States in more than 35 civil and criminal cases in 11 federal courts of appeals. Kevin teaches Supreme Court litigation at Harvard Law School and formerly taught at Stanford Law School. Kevin clerked for Judge William Norris of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit and Justice Stephen Breyer. He is a graduate of Yale Law School.

Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. ComerThe Missouri Department of Natural Resources' express policy of denying grants to any applicant owned or controlled by a church, sect or other religious entity violated the rights of Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc., under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment by denying the church an otherwise available public benefit on account of its religious status.

Hernández v. Mesa(1) A Bivens remedy is not available when there are "special factors counselling hesitation in the absence of affirmative action by Congress," and the court recently clarified in Ziglar v. Abbasi what constitutes a special factor counselling hesitation; the court of appeals should consider how the reasoning and analysis in Ziglar bear on the question whether the parents of a victim shot by a U.S. Border Patrol agent may recover damages for his death; (2) It would be imprudent for the Supreme Court to decide Jesus Hernandez’s Fourth Amendment claim when, in light of the intervening guidance provided in Abbasi, doing so may be unnecessary to resolve this particular case; and (3) with respect to Hernandez’s Fifth Amendment claim, because it is undisputed that the victim's nationality and the extent of his ties to the United States were unknown to the agent at the time of the shooting, the en banc court of appeals erred in granting qualified immunity based on those facts.

Conference of September 25, 2017

Collins v. Virginia Whether the Fourth Amendment's automobile exception permits a police officer, uninvited and without a warrant, to enter private property, approach a house and search a vehicle parked a few feet from the house.

Butka v. Sessions Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit erred in this case by holding that it had no jurisdiction to review the denial of a motion to reopen by the Board of Immigration Appeals, where the review sought was limited to assessing the legal framework upon which the sua sponte request was made.

National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra Whether the free speech clause or the free exercise clause of the First Amendment prohibits California from compelling licensed pro-life centers to post information on how to obtain a state-funded abortion and from compelling unlicensed pro-life centers to disseminate a disclaimer to clients on site and in any print and digital advertising.